HARARE — Zanu PF says the legal process to amend Zimbabwe’s Constitution in order to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure beyond his 2028 second-term limit to 2030 is now imminent, insisting that such an amendment does not require a national referendum.
The ruling party argues that altering the length of a presidential term is legally distinct from altering the number of terms a president may serve, and therefore does not fall under the referendum requirements set out in the Constitution. The position is contained in papers filed by Zanu PF national political commissar Munyaradzi Machacha in opposition to a Constitutional Court application filed by local pressure group Ibhetshu Likazulu and its leader Mbuso Fuzwayo.
Fuzwayo is the first applicant and Ibhetshu Likazulu the second, while Zanu PF is cited as the first respondent. Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, Speaker of the National Assembly Jacob Mudenda, Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza and President Mnangagwa are listed as the second to fifth respondents respectively.
Ibhetshu Likazulu and Fuzwayo are seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court to challenge reported plans to amend section 95(2) of the Constitution to prolong Mnangagwa’s stay in office.
In its notice of opposition, Zanu PF insists that the intended amendment is lawful and remains merely an intention until formal processes begin.
“First respondent intends to amend the Constitution of Zimbabwe with a view to implementing Resolution 1 of 2024. This is an intention, but nothing concrete is yet in place,” Machacha states.
“This intention is constitutional because the Constitution of Zimbabwe says it can be amended. No democratic constitution worldwide immunises itself against amendment. All constitutions are amendable, provided the prescribed procedure is followed.”
Machacha cites the amendment provisions in the United States and South African constitutions as precedent, arguing that Zimbabwe’s Constitution similarly provides a “clear, rigorous and non-political” process.
“The Constitution of Zimbabwe, in section 328 as read with section 131, mandates a 90-day Gazette notice, public hearings and submissions, and two-thirds affirmative votes in each House of Parliament, culminating in presidential assent. This is a parliamentary and technical odyssey, not a partisan skirmish in the political gutter,” he says.
“The issue, therefore, should not be that there is a desire to amend, but whether the desired amendment will be done in accordance with the process and procedure prescribed by the Constitution.”
Machacha further argues that Zanu PF is a “law-abiding organisation” that brought about the current constitutional order and would not seek to violate it.
“Any desire to amend the Constitution shall be done in accordance with the terms and processes set out. Within a multi-party system, a governing party with the necessary legislative majority is within its rights to seek constitutional amendments,” he adds.
He dismisses the applicants’ assertion that extending the presidential term length requires a referendum, saying they have not demonstrated this under section 328 of the Constitution.
Machacha also defends Zanu PF’s controversial Resolution 1 of 2024 — which called for Mnangagwa’s tenure to be extended — saying it was informed by concerns that short electoral cycles have hindered long-term socio-economic progress in African states.
“The resolution is grounded in the reality that many African states, including Zimbabwe, have been crippled by toxic barriers to socio-economic progress — shorter four-to-five-year terms of office have trapped governments in dysfunctional ‘perpetual election modes’,” he argues.
The Constitutional Court is yet to rule on whether Ibhetshu Likazulu and Fuzwayo will be granted direct access to challenge the proposed amendment. – NewsHawk
